The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-07-02
MECHANICS LIEN LAW.
Hon. n. =. bryan Argues That d Il
Unconstftutfanal.

The suit brought by Rober. Page,
under lhs mechanics lien law, against
Mrs. X. McNulty, was heard before
Chancellor Allison yesterday on the
demurrer OF defendants. Mr.. NJ. I.
Bryan, attorney for Mrs McNulty,
took the ground that ths law was IN.
constitutional, and filed q demurrer
citing O number OF reasons for this
position. This demurrer has hereto
lore been published in these columns.
Ii his argument OF the Gaze he insist
cd on the unconstitutionality CT the
Law, and said this was true "becAuse
the act OF 1887 makes the property an
s1er an involuntary debtor. II pro-
poses TO make him liable for the con.
tracts cf the contractor in which he
had 20 voice, part or share, aud that,
too, without notice to him. I. Is true
that under the mechanics lien law,
prior to the act OF 1887, the owner was
he'd liable 10 toe sub-contrGc.
tor, journeymen, ETC., with
whom he had made no contract,
bat this liability was only 10 the ex.
tent OF the sum agreed upon between
himteli and contractor, II notice Was
given him by The sub-cOatractor n his
Intention to rely upon this lien before
the work was done or the materials
iurnjshed. And II notice was given
dufing the progress OF the work, then
the owner was held only to the ex-
tent OF any sum or balance then due
OF to become due under said contract.
(N. 4 V. code, section 2Si6 Under
this statute Il will be seen the owner
is hel1 only 10 the extent OF his own
contract, and upon notice 10 him.
While under the new statute Il is pro-
posed 10 bod him and his pr lperty
Tor the contracts OF bis contractor
without notice TO him Of the contracts
land iJT amounts which MAJ b. largely
In excess Of what he had agreed upon
with his contractor. To illustrate
lhii: A lots a contract 10 B, & builder
and d.oontrAclor, 10 build him 3 house
lt' the tum OF s60OU, sublets the
billing Of The house 10 different parties
ioi different sums, aggregating 5000.
Wlo the sub.contractoB are,
or What they take az their respective
parb Of work, B does not know aud
hse 10 ria 10 know, as no notice TO
linn = pro ,ided for or required under
this nav law, and even II he had this
Ioues II would not avail, an he could
not interfere with the o'airActs OF n,
OF With bic sub contractors, II this act
be constitutional, nor could he sue.
cessfully resist the payment or sale OF
bis property 10 satisfy The full amount
o. the claims OF the sub contractors,
even though they sgg agated $1,000
over the amount OF his original scn-
tract. Thus Ia the owner made an In.
voluntary debtor and bis property
corh,caied for the default Of his con.
tractor. The provision In the act that
the owner may take bond from the
contractor 10 indemnify him, even u
sufficient for the contract price, would
be no security for any excess over the
contract price. II would bs better
and more equitable II the set gave q
lien upon all the property Of the con-
tractor Tor his contracts, but there 10
no equity nor justice In giving q
lien upon a mans property without
h.s knowledge, consent or agency.
Tee mechanics, journeymen and Ia.
borep are not really the beneaeiaries
OF this new law, should II be held
valid, bat the few wealthy contractors
WHO can give bond, as required, will
reap the benefit II will have the
effect 10 concentrate the business OF
building In their hands. The honest,
but poor mechanic, being unable 10
give bond, cannot compete with the
wealthy and strong contractor who will
be enabled 10 monopoliEs the busi-
ness. In other words he will have q
corner on building, like monopolistic
corners In grain, and while the lev
will get rich by II, the many are sure
10 suffer.